May 11, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2013) Legalpedia (SC) 14011 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT ABUJA Thu Dec 19, 2013 Suit Number: SC.187/2005 CORAM IAN LEWIS PARTIES FIRST […]
CORAM
IAN LEWIS
PARTIES
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC APPELLANTS
ALEXANDER. N. OZOKWERE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Respondent, as Administrator of the personal Estate of late Cyprian N. Ozokwere, after discovery that Goodfit Trading” Co. Ltd. delivered goods of wrong specifications (ladies wears instead of motor parts) in consequence of which the goods were impounded by the Nigerian customs as contraband goods and slated for auctioning, sued the Defendant/Appellant for recovery of the sum of US$186,990.00 paid on the bill of exchange and received by the Defendant/Appellant on behalf of Goodfit Trading” Co. Ltd. which sum was yet to be remitted to the above foreign company. The Trial Court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent in the above foreign currency and the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to Supreme Court where the appeals were dismissed.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold respondent’s claim/allegation of breach of contract of sale/supply (on which his entire case was predicated) despite lack of privity of contract with the appellant and non-joinder of the overseas suppliers against whom the breach was alleged. (Grounds 1 and 11). Whether available pleadings/evidence disclosed that the respondent on record deposited US Dollar Currency with appellant bank as specifically claimed in his principal relief to warrant entry of judgment for US. $186,990.00 which the Court of Appeal upheld as “money had and received”. (Grounds V and VII). Whether the judgment in US Dollar Currency is sustainable despite uncontroverted hard evidence that the deposit sought to be “refunded” was made in naira currency and that requisite documents were not furnished to enable its conversion to or remittance in US Dollar Currency. (Grounds III and IV). Whether the Court of Appeal was influenced by impleaded, extraneous, hasty, speculative or prejudicial considerations/conclusions in its evaluation of the issues/evidence presented before it, resulting in miscarriage of justice against the appellant. (Grounds VIII, IX and X)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
QUANTUM MERUIT -MEANING OF
Blacks law Dictionary, 8th Ed. at page 1276 defines the term thus:-
1.”The reasonable value of service; damage, awarded in an amount considered reasonable to compensate a person who has rendered services in a quasi contractual relationship.
2.A claim or right of action for the reasonable value of services rendered.
3.At common law, a count in an assumpsit action to recover payment for services rendered to another person.
Quantum meruit is still used today as an equitable remedy to provide restitution for unjust enrichment. It is often pleaded as an alternative claim in a breach of contract case so that the plaintiff can recover even if the contract is unenforceable”. Emphasis supplied.
UNJUST ENRICHMENT -MEANING OF
Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th Ed defines the term at pages 1573 -1574 as follows:
1.The retention of a benefit conferred by another without offering compensation, in circumstance where compensation is reasonably expected.
2.A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.
3.The area of law dealing with unjustifiable benefits of this kind”. Emphasis supplied.”
PARTIES TO AN ACTION-JOINDER OF PARTIES-RATIONAL FOR MAKING A PERSON A PARTY TO AN ACTION
“It is settled law that there is a distinction between the desire of making a person a party to a suit and the necessity of making him a party. For a person to be a party to an action, he must be a necessary party so as to be bound by the decision in the proceedings. See Peenok vs Hotel Presidential (1983) 4 NCLR 122. If the court can decide the claim of the plaintiff with the parties before it, it will proceed to do just that irrespective of the fact that the relief sought in the action might affect a person not joined “.
JUDGMENT-FOREIGN CURRENCY JUDGMENT-WHETHER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF NIGERIAN COURT
“It is however settled law that foreign currency judgments are within the general jurisdiction of the courts of law in Nigeria depending on the facts of the cases “.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE- PRIMARY DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT -WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE THEREWITH
“It is settled law that evaluation of evidence is the primary responsibility of the trial court. Once there is proper evaluation of evidence by a lower court an appellate court has no business interfering unless the decision is perverse and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice, see Balogun vs Asbola (1974) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 2) 66. Where, however, evaluation of evidence does not involve the credibility of witnesses but the complaint is against the non-evaluation or improper evaluation of evidence by the trial/lower court, an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial/lower court to do its own evaluation”.
SETTING ASIDE OF JUDGMENT OF A TRIAL COURT -WHETHER EVERY MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT WILL WARRANT SAME- WHEN MAY BE SET ASIDE ON APPEAL
“It is settled law that it is not every mistake made by the lower court that will result in the judgment of that court being set aside on appeal. For the mistake to be considered as worthy of that effect, it must be relevant to the issue(s) in contention between the parties and substantial as to lead to a miscarriage of justice”.
PERVERSE DECISION-MEANING OF
“A perverse decision is one which ignores the evidence before the court and which results in or amounts to a miscarriage of justice”.
NECESSARY PARTY- CONSIDERATIONS ON WHO A NECESSARY PARTY IS
” Some of the relevant considerations are:
(i) Whether the court can successfully adjudicate in the cause of action set up by the plaintiff without the party being added as a defendant.
(ii) Whether the party would be- bound by the outcome of the proceedings.”
“MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED” – NATURE OF A CLAIM FOR “MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED”
“A claim of this nature for “money had and received” is in the nature of an equitable remedy to discourage unjust enrichment. It is to prevent a defendant (such as the appellant herein) from holding on to money, which has come into his possession, which it is against conscience that he should keep. See: First Bank of Nigeria Ltd. VS A.P. Ltd. (1996) 4 NWLR (443) @ 448 B; Chartered Bank Ltd. VS First African Trust Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2005) LPELR-11350 (CA) @ 15 – 16 E – A.”
CASES CITED
Atolagbe vs Shorun (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 360 at 375|Balogun vs Asbola (1974) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 2) 66|Koyo vs UBA (1997) 1NWLR (Pt. 481) 251;|Broadline Enterprises vs Monthly Martime Corp. (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 417) 1 at 30|Peenok vs Hotel Presidential (1983) 4 NCLR 122|Settlement Corporation (1969) 1 WLR 1664;|Green vs Green (1987) 7SCNJ255 at 269
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|